# Contradictory or complementary?



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

I've been giving some thought to the consequences of funding SCHIP with tobacco taxes and the regulation of tobacco by the FDA. Nothing happens in a vacuum. The question is ,,, in the long run, are these two decisions contradictory or complementary?

First, let’s get the short-run out of the way. Politicians in Congress see SCHIP as a major accomplishment that they can brag about in 2008 to the large majority of non-smoking voters who think they are getting something for nothing. In terms of government revenues for SCHIP, the dynamics of tobacco price, supply and demand probably won't become an issue before the 2008 election. 

Let’s think about the long run. 

Government has historically tried to outlaw potentially addictive behavior that is viewed unfavorably by voters. The prohibitions on liquor and gambling were withdrawn because social consequences, public attitudes and the need for tax revenues outweighed the desire to ban those behaviors. 

Tobacco has been taxed for many years. Like liquor, the tax rate has been set to maximize revenues without significantly impacting consumption. That is what seems different about the proposed tax for SCHIP. It will make tobacco products very expensive and may put many retailers out of the tobacco business. Perhaps Congress is counting on the addictive qualities of tobacco to maintain the tax base in the long run. Or, perhaps Congress doesn’t care if it destroys the tax base. 

Tobacco is the public scourge of the moment. I suspect that’s why Congress wants the FDA to regulate tobacco. It’s not inconceivable that, sometime after the 2008 election, the FDA may decide that it's their duty to completely prohibit the importation or sale of any tobacco products. 

Why would Congress choose to enact a huge tax, on a product that many want to eliminate, as the primary funding source for a potentially popular program? 

On the one hand, Congress could choose to override a future FDA decision to outlaw tobacco. This would maintain what was left of the existing tax base for programs they don’t want to eliminate. This would also be an unexpected benefit of tobacco taxes for those smokers willing to pay the price for legal access to these products.

On the other hand, given the trend of anti-smoking legislation, it seems more likely that FDA will have its way and Congress will simply look for a new group of taxpayers they can tax “for their own good.” Anything addictive will do. 

State governments seem to have saturated the gambling market with every lotto game imaginable. Given the proclivities of the Congressmen I know and the probable public outcry, it seems that higher liquor taxes will not be on the Congressional radar. Something related to firearms or marijuana seems possible. Or, perhaps a junk food tax will allow Congress to fund these programs for a while with $15 Big-Macs and $20 bags of Cheetos.

I’m not sure where this little merry-go-round will end. 

Damn martinis.


----------



## Teninx (Apr 23, 2006)

I speculated that the FDA might prohibit tobacco....since then, I was able to read the text of the bill that would empower such regulation. There's a paragraph defining the regulatory mission as continuing to provide tobacco as a legal product to adults. I may have been hasty in my assesment.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Interesting food for thought. :2


----------



## Ivory Tower (Nov 18, 2005)

Damn martinis? Damn cigarettes!:r


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

Teninx said:


> I speculated that the FDA might prohibit tobacco....since then, I was able to read the text of the bill that would empower such regulation. There's a paragraph defining the regulatory mission as continuing to provide tobacco as a legal product to adults. I may have been hasty in my assesment.


When I first read this, I thought &#8230; great, at least tobacco won't be outlawed. I also felt a little embarrassed and decided to do a little more research on the FDA legislation.

Now, I'm not so sure that you were too hasty in your original assessment. I read your thread http://www.clubstogie.com/vb/showthread.php?t=94436. You made some excellent points and I encourage others to read it. I'm not sure that anything in the legislation invalidates your original conclusions.

Since the early 1990's, the anti-smoking lobby has wanted give the FDA authority over tobacco but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't in their charter. Now, two identical bipartisan bills (S. 625/H.R. 1108) are in Congress to grant this authority to the FDA. The sponsors are Senators Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and John Cornyn (R-TX) and U.S. Representatives Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and Tom Davis (R-VA).

According to the organizations that support these bills, the purpose of the legislation is clear, "The FDA would be empowered to take a broad range of actions that no federal or state agency currently can take that can significantly reduce the number of people who start to use tobacco and significantly increase the number of people who quit using tobacco."

In addition to giving the FDA broad authority over the marketing and distribution of tobacco, the legislation grants a specific standard for the FDA's regulation of tobacco. As requested by the public health community, this standard would require consideration of whether a product change would reduce the overall harm caused by tobacco use, including the harm caused to individual tobacco users and the impact on the population as a whole.

Each manufacturer must submit to the FDA a description of the content, delivery and form of nicotine in each product, as well as all documents that relate to health, toxicological, behavioral or physiological effects of each product. The FDA will use this information to develop performance standards for tobacco products required to reduce the harm they cause. These performance standards are seen as the primary FDA enforcement mechanism in the legislation. In addition to requiring changes to ingredients and additives, the FDA will be empowered to change nicotine levels to any level other than zero (reserved to Congress). As proponents believe, "This means FDA can reduce nicotine to minimal levels, including levels that do not lead to addiction."

While it's true that the bill reserves to Congress the authority to enact a outright ban of any class of tobacco products, the new FDA authority would be more than adequate to create what would amount to a de facto ban of any real domestic or foreign tobacco products and to all but eliminate the use of tobacco in the United States.

Then again, the FDA hasn't been able to protect us from poisoned dog food, dangerous prescription drugs or rotten cantaloupes. Do you think they will do a better job with tobacco?


----------



## Teninx (Apr 23, 2006)

Here's the glimmer of hope that I cited, from the "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act" S 2461 (italics mine):

_...to continue to permit the sale of tobacco products to adults in conjunction with measures to insure that they are not sold or accessable to underage purchasers..._

This very well may be Sen. Kennedy et. al. answer to those who rightfully fear a back-door tobacco prohibition. There certainly is enough leeway in the 
Act's 155 pages to impose enough restrictions to make tobacco sales impossible in any feasable circumstance.

Here's a link to the entire text of the bill, in Adobe pdf format:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2461is.txt.pdf


----------

